Witcover: Another blunder by the not-so-new Newt

Posted: December 27, 2011 - 1:55am

Jules Witcover

Syndicated Columnist

Newt Gingrich, the self-proclaimed “smartest guy in the room,” may have outsmarted himself in his latest assault on the American judiciary, just as his newly acquired front-running status for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination is shining a brighter spotlight than ever on him.

The former House speaker’s call for the removal of federal judges he considers too far out of the public mainstream, even to the point of forcibly hauling them before Congress to explain and justify their rulings, questions his judgment and his credential as a historian, so often flourished in candidate debates.

For many conservatives as well as longtime liberal foes, Gingrich’s declarations on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” on what he calls judicial extremism are a bridge too far. Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, a George W. Bush appointee, has labeled them “dangerous, ridiculous, totally irresponsible, outrageous, off the wall,” adding that such views “would reduce the entire judicial system to a spectacle.”

It is particularly perilous politically for Gingrich to take on the American political system itself, and perhaps the one branch that is still trusted by most voters, at a time the executive and the legislative are mired in low public approval. His suggestion that congressional committees could get rid of certain judges whose rulings displease them invites speculation about Gingrich’s appreciation of the basic concepts of checks and balances and the separation of powers.

In his attack on the judiciary, this former history teacher at a small Georgia college invoked Anti-Federalist President Thomas Jefferson, who in the early 1800s voided the creation of 16 new federal circuit court judgeships to be filled by the Federalist faction of defeated President John Adams.

But this was a far cry from challenging specific judicial rulings as extreme or out of favor with the mainstream thought, as Gingrich proposes, and coercing judges to tell Congress why they ruled as they did on certain issues. The Constitution from its outset provided for impeachment of federal judges by the House and trial by the Senate — the same impeachement process as for the president — but only for bad behavior, involving “Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” not the substance of their rulings.

In recent presidential candidate debates, held before overwhelmingly strong conservative audiences and sometimes sponsored by right-wing groups, Gingrich has generated heavy applause and cheering for his anti-judiciary views. But rival Mitt Romney, stepping up his attacks on Gingrich as his poll figures have risen, rebutted him in debate on how to deal with “excessive judges,” and Ron Paul called the notion of Congress acting as an arbiter of judicial rulings “a real affront of the separation of powers.”

Until his remarks denouncing judicial opinions that were not to his liking on gay marriage and school prayer, and his specific attack on the oft-liberal decisions of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California, Gingrich had pledged to put a more positive face on his campaign. He vowed not to say anything negative about his opponents, but that vow obviously did not cover the one branch of government that has always been a favorite target.

In one of the last debates prior to the Jan. 3 Iowa precinct caucuses, Gingrich said the courts have been “grotesquely dictatorial and far too powerful.” Elsewhere, he said the Supreme Court in its 5-4 ruling giving Guantanamo detainees the right to challenge their detention before a judge “was clearly an overreach.” He said the president as commander-in-chief in control of prisoners of war could render the ruling “null and void,” adding that “under very rare circumstances, the executive branch might choose to ignore a court decision.” ...

Bringing his views before the nation so conspicuously on a Sunday political talk show, and thus generating wide print, television and Internet re-airing, is risky business for a candidate already tagged by many critics and commentators as a loose cannon. The New Newt seems increasingly not new at all.

Jules Witcover’s latest book is Joe Biden: A Life of Trial and Redemption” (William Morrow). You can respond to this column at juleswitcover@comcast.net.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

From The Washington Post, 12/19/2011: "During an appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Gingrich suggested the president could send federal law enforcement authorities to arrest judges who make controversial rulings in order to compel them to justify their decisions before congressional hearings."
These are not the words of a candidate who respects the Constitution. They are the dreams and longings of a would-be dictator.
When the judiciary is no longer independent, but is subject to arrest on the whim of a President, there is no recourse to the courts.
We would all be slaves. Only some of the people would enjoy the servitude.

I was one of the Conservative bloggers/Radio guys who blasted Obama for his attack on the Supreme Court in his State of the Union address.

That attack pales in comparison to this idiotic tirade from Gingrich. Where are all of those bloggers now? Are they blasting Gingrich? If not, then they really need to stop pretending they care about anything but politics.

The GOP establishment won't allow Newt to be nominated. There is no need for conservative bloggers to waste space on him. Gingrich is on a book tour, not a campaign, and didn't even manage to get on the ballot in his own state. Should he still somehow look like a viable candidate, then they'll unleash the dogs. Among other things, they have moved the counting of the Iowa caucus votes to a secret location (you know, because those evil Occupy folks are going to disrupt it - fear them!!). It's an interesting race to watch.